I'm not surprised that Canon is dropping the 5D3's price now.In my opinion, Canon was very smart in their marketing. They launched the 5D3 higher than expected for the consumer market. This kept the old 5D2 still in high demand at an incredibly "affordable" price. Pros were fine paying the premium price early because they need it to do their job + it's a business expense. Now they introduce a cheaper full-frame body to take the 5D2's current price point, and can safely lower the 5D3.

Nikon didn't have that issue as they immediately discontinued the D700.

I'm not surprised that Canon is dropping the 5D3's price now.In my opinion, Canon was very smart in their marketing. They launched the 5D3 higher than expected for the consumer market. This kept the old 5D2 still in high demand at an incredibly "affordable" price. Pros were fine paying the premium price early because they need it to do their job + it's a business expense. Now they introduce a cheaper full-frame body to take the 5D2's current price point, and can safely lower the 5D3.

Nikon didn't have that issue as they immediately discontinued the D700.

+1 ... I think you nailed it on the nose.

regarding 5DIII image quality vs 5DII image quality, I'm seeing about 1/2-stop improvement in RAW, which is enough reason for me to upgrade (along with the AF and all the other improvements)

I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price. The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need). The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700. At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing. Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper. Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't. And the price of most electronics drops over time.

I beg to disagree... I doubt that D800 received complaints about pricing. Nikon offered it at exactly the same price as its predecessor (D700), despite also making significant improvements. How do you justify 5DIII's price increase of $800 ($3500 at launch compared to 5DII at $2700)? The fact that Canon can still make a profit at $2500-$2700 proves that at $3500, the camera was grossly overpriced, so that Canon could milk the early adopters. I think people had every right to complain about its pricing.

I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price. The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need). The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700. At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.

It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing. Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper. Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't. And the price of most electronics drops over time.

I beg to disagree... I doubt that D800 received complaints about pricing. Nikon offered it at exactly the same price as its predecessor (D700), despite also making significant improvements. How do you justify 5DIII's price increase of $800 ($3500 at launch compared to 5DII at $2700)? The fact that Canon can still make a profit at $2500-$2700 proves that at $3500, the camera was grossly overpriced, so that Canon could milk the early adopters. I think people had every right to complain about its pricing.

The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial. Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product. Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it. You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time. Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

Maybe in jpeg, but not in RAW. The difference is almost negligible. AF is another story, though...

When the price comes down to $2500 again in the new year I'll pick a 5D3 up. It's an amazing camera.

Hmmmm, I find it interesting that you (not a 5D mkIII owner) are telling someone else (who owns a 5D mkIII) that the low light performance is not what they thinks it is...

I personally am saving up for this camera specifically for its low light performance in video and its AF abilities. These 'sales' look great because the EBay ones never seem to ship to Canada. Can't wait till Christmas!!

... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it. You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time. Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it. The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...

... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it. You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time. Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it. The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...

Yes, and keep in mind that they don't make any profit on the first batch of cameras, no matter how much they charge. I'm guessing that before a camera like the 5DIII is released, there are several years' worth of research and development by a very advanced work force. There is likely a huge "money suck" of salaries, benefits, facilities, taxes, etc., before the 5DIII earns any money. Once the camera is released, they have to sell quite a lot of them to even break even on their investment. So whether the camera is priced $3,500 or $3,000 initially, they are probably not making any profit at that point, just recouping a very substantial investment. I'm just guessing, of course, and I have no idea whether or why Nikon would do things any differently.

... Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it. You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time. Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

+1 its funny folks forget that Canon is free to charge whateve they want and customers are free to choose whether or not they want to pay it. The consequences of anything different are rather unsavory...

Yes, and keep in mind that they don't make any profit on the first batch of cameras, no matter how much they charge. I'm guessing that before a camera like the 5DIII is released, there are several years' worth of research and development by a very advanced work force. There is likely a huge "money suck" of salaries, benefits, facilities, taxes, etc., before the 5DIII earns any money. Once the camera is released, they have to sell quite a lot of them to even break even on their investment. So whether the camera is priced $3,500 or $3,000 initially, they are probably not making any profit at that point, just recouping a very substantial investment. I'm just guessing, of course, and I have no idea whether or why Nikon would do things any differently.

certainly there is an intial investment that Canon amortizes across the expected life to produce x amount of profit over time. I'm sure that is carefully modeled and my guess is that the 5D3 project was approved under that (and other) scrutiny. Whether the financial models include a high into price or not I don't know, but I suspect so. If they made a few hundred more on the first few thousand units that would be money in the bank, to be sure.

The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial. Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.

I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.

Quote

Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.

What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.

Quote

You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.

I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.

It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.

Quote

Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000

The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial. Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.

I don't dispute the improvements of 5DIII. However, as the technology matures - 4 years later - these improvements should be offered without a substantial price increase. That's exactly what Nikon did with D800 vs D700. Heck, even Canon's own 5DII was introduced at $500 less than 5D, despite all the improvements.

Quote

Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.

What you described is exactly my definition for milking early adopters. What do you call a policy, when the price is initially inflated to take advantage of these people? True, some of them made a calculated decision or may not care about the price. However, I bet many people were disappointed to find out that they overpaid hundreds of dollars.

Quote

You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.

I disagree again. At this price point, most buyers are heavily invested in a particular system. Due to prohibitive cost of switching systems, there really aren't any alternatives, other that other Canon's models, which have very different specs and therefore are not directly comparable.

It does not cost any less to manufacture the camera now that it cost 3 months ago, so it's pure speculation on Canon's part. As I said, many people may have paid the price because of lack of alternatives, not because they thought it was a fair price.

Quote

Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.

I believe that people's concern is not Canon's big profit, but their pricing. Sure, it's not illegal, but it does not compare well with other companies, which also deliver hightly desirable products but without the increased price. As I said in the previous post, I doubt Nikon users had reasons to complain about their pricing. However, I find it hard to understand why you defend Canon's greed. They did the same thing with the 60D, pricing it at $1200, only to lower the price to $900 a few months later under pressure from D7000

Again, they are a business, not a photographers' aid society. They have to recover their investment and make a profit, the sooner the better. Grossing 15% more on a hot product is hardly the definition of greed. What you call "greed" is what others call smart business. The penalty of doing otherwise is pretty severe. Compare Canon, Apple, etc. vs. Bronica, Contax, Kodak, Polaroid, etc.

I don't think any of has any factual basis to state what the price of the 5DIII "should" have been. We can only guess. Sure, camera technology matures, but there is constant research and development. How much did the new AF system cost? Or the new sensor? Or the new mirror system? We don't have a clue. Should it automatically be cheaper because it's 4 years later? Not necessarily. The cost of manufacture 3 months ago vs. now is not really relevant when there are several years worth of investment to recover, not to mention the costs of investing in products yet to be developed.

It's not surprising for a technology company to lower prices over time. It's the same if you're buying this year's newest model television vs. last year's about to be discontinued model television. Certainly last year's will be discounted vs. the newest.

I don't see how people "overpay" due to a lack of alternatives. There are so many alternatives, including the alternative of not buying. On the one hand, who is so desperately in need of a product that doesn't exist yet that they have no alternative but to "overpay" when it finally comes into existence? On the other hand, if a new product offers such compelling advantages to a photographer that it is worth an immediate purchase, then why not pay the introductory price? Did a photographer overpay for the 5DIII by $500, or did having the camera earlier reward him by at least that much? That's a calculation for each photographer to make, based on their needs and budget.